MattJ wrote:It strikes me that primordial lacks the connotations of independent and permanent, or in the very least, the opposite of immanent or manifest.
To quote Candrakīrti, Nirvāṇa connotes the cessation of all talk about it, the quiesence of phenomenal existence, and the attainment of the highest good.
The Vaibhāṣika thinks that Nirvāṇa is a positive entity (bhāva). Nāgārjuna says that the Hinayanist believes Nirvāṇa to be unconditioned. To say it is unconditioned (asaṁskṛta) and yet a positive entity (bhāva) amounts to a self-contradiction, for a positive entity which is not dependent on conditions cannot be discovered. If it is not bhāva, it cannot be abhāva, for abhāva is a relative word. There can be abhāva only when previously there is bhāva. Moreover cessation (abhāva) is an event, occuring in time. It would make Nirvāṇa transitory.
(Introduction to Madhyamika Philosophy, Jaideva Singh, Pp 28-29).
So Nirvāṇa is neither existent nor non-existent, the problem is that if you say 'the real self' or Nirvāṇa is something existent and opposed to 'the false self' and to samsara which is non existent, then you are objectifying it, making the unconditioned an object of perception. As soon as you refer to the unconditioned as 'it' or even think about it through words, you are falling into that trap. This goes for the 'true self' idea also. But because of habits of speech and thought, when we are discussing such topics, we will refer to 'it' and 'that', whereas in reality, there is no such thing or object of perception. But that doesn't mean the unconditioned is unreal or non-existent - that is the error of nihilism. It is beyond the scope of speech and thought so can not be objectified.
I think the Buddhist teaching is concerned with 'transformation of perception'. From the same source:
The [lesser vehicle] considers certain defiled and conditioned dharma to be ultimately real, and also certain undefiled and unconditioned dharmas to be ultimately real. According to [them], Nirvāṇa means a veritable change of the discrete, conditioned existences (saṁskṛta dharmas) and defilements (kleśa) into unconditioned and undefiled dharma. The Madhyamika says that Nirvāṇa does not mean a change in the objective order, the change is only subjective. It is not that world that we have to change, but only ourselves.
But if every being has the capacity to realize this truth, then that capacity can be allegorically referred to as 'a true self' in my view, even if for the reasons given above, it is not ultimately existent. I have a Korean Zen text,
No River to Cross, by Zen Master Daehaeng, and it has many references to such ideas as the 'buddha nature' and 'real mind' on almost every page, and I wouldn't like to criticize this book on that account. But I regard it as a mode of expression or a figure of speech.
